Hit & Run

Romney Ahead of Obama in Poll Released Today



What a difference a year can make.

From Politico:

As more bad poll numbers continue to pour in for President Barack Obama, a new survey finds that if the 2012 election matchup were held this month, Mitt Romney would hold the edge with the voters.

Romney topped Obama 49 percent to 45 percent among registered voters in the Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday. Among all Americans, the 2012 rivals would be tied, at 47 percent.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

NEXT: Vid: The Truth About Mental Illness and Guns

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Hey, you form habits in school.

  1. So, all that Romney needed to win was to run against an unfathomably weak candidate. Well, I'm convinced. I say we give Mr. Electable another shot in 2016. Provided that the Democrats nominate a convicted child murderer, he's a shoo-in.

    1. I'm still voting LP.

    2. No way. Muricans love cops.

  2. Romney Ahead of Obama in Poll Released Today

    Excellent! Run him again, GOP! Because this time...

    1. He's tanned, rested and ready!

    2. Anyone get a weird feeling about the weirdness of this poll?

      Like ABC wants Romney to run against Hilary or something?

  3. Repeal and Replace!

    1. If you like your lame-ass loser candidate, you can keep your lame-ass loser candidate.

  4. Romney topped Obama 49 percent to 45 percent among registered voters in the Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday.

    Romney: "I could've won the election if held today... not that anybody cares!"

    1. Sad when people like you more the less they see of you. I seem to remember a tanned face and nice hairline.

  5. "Romney Ahead of Obama in Poll Released Today"

    Hmmm. Only because he did not win. If he were actually in the oval office fucking things up.....

    1. If he were actually in the oval office fucking things up.....

      Which is a safe bet.

  6. "...if the 2012 election matchup were held this month, Mitt Romney would hold the edge with the voters."

    Of course, they neglect to mention that so would broccoli, car salesmen, Rob Schneider, mothers-in-law, and the sound of fingernails on a blackboard.

    1. Broccoli wins by a landslide.

      1. With Rob Schneider as a carrot as his running mate? No force in politics can wing against that level of vitamin content and der derp der dididy derpdy derp.

  7. Romney Ahead of Obama in Poll Released Today

    A little late America.

  8. OT: Does your job create value?

    We were talking about issues related to this last week and here is another economist bringing it up from a different POV and he's largely right.

    Something has been happening in the economy over the last 30-40 years which traditional economics of all varieties says should not be possible. Basically large swathes of industry which realistically provide no net value to the economy are not just surviving but thriving.

    Last week we were talking about whether/how your job provides value to your employer but this question goes to the next level and highlights just how odd of a situation we are in.

    1. Obviously some of this is a result of overly large government, just look at the massive amount of money spent every year filing taxes, obviously while that activity provides value to it's customers (keeping them out of jail and minimizing their tax bill) it only exists because of the overly byzantine tax code and provides no benefit to society as a whole but that is not the whole of it. In addition to parts of the financial industry that the author mentions there are any number of other places you can look to find huge amounts being spent for services/products which provide no actual value to anyone. So is the problem that we've become so rich that the marginal utility of additional wealth has fallen below the margin of error in calculating it so people are more apt to spend on useless things just to have something to do with the money? Or is it all second order effects of government economic interventions (for example loose monetary policy devaluing saving to the point where "throwing" the money away makes more sense than saving it)?

      1. When someone uses the words "real value", you gotta question whether they understand that all value is subjective to a person.

        That being said, the three industry categories they brought up -- education, finance, and health care -- are all heavily interfered with by the government, resulting in a loss of innovation and productivity.

        But to say that it creates no "real value" for someone to become educated, to be healthier, and to have their money steered into more productive investments is just retarded.

        1. Yeah, but that second order effect of government bullshit is something I've been thinking about for years. Jobs such as tax preparer / accountant, medicare / medicaid billing coder, the various compliance jobs many industries create, lobbyist, etc. are all zero-value added jobs that wouldn't exist but for government rules.

          If these people were doing productive, value-added work, it would be a huge benefit for the majority of people. Also, those who would be worse off have no legitimate claim on what are essentially hidden tax dollars of others.

          1. I don't think you can call it "zero-value added" work. There is value in not being fined or thrown in jail for violating the law. It would probably be more accurate to say that government regulation distorts the market by forcing resources to be allocated away from where a free and voluntary market would direct them. Which of course comes as a surprise to no one here.

            1. Tax consultants also allow wealthy, sophisticated investors, particularly offshore investors, many opportunities to greatly reduce or defer US taxes by using more complex, multi-tiered entity structures.

              Come for the lower tax liabilities, stay for the law abiding tax compliance.

          2. I think you're wrong about them being zero-value added jobs. If you look at the efficiency before and after the laws that produced the latest compliance jobs, then yes, less efficient. But the day after, no. The market will respond in rational ways to all limitations on the efficiency solution. It doesn't view natural and artificial limitations differently.

        2. "But to say that it creates no "real value" for someone to become educated, to be healthier, and to have their money steered into more productive investments is just retarded."

          But neither he, nor I were saying that

          Both of us were making the point that while financial services, education, and health care were valuable services it is impossible to say that all of the work being done in the name of those services is providing value.

          Another example is advertising. Obviously effective advertising is a value add to a company and it is even at times valuable to the targeted consumer (informing them about new products/services available on the market) the question is how much advertising can possibly be effective and how much actually creates new purchases.

          I mean I see advertisements for defense contractors. Who precisely are they advertising to? It's not like I can go to the store and buy Lockheed's latest air to air radar tracking system. Then we get into the Cola Wars. Sure Coke would prefer you buy their product over Pepsi but it is not like all the advertising they do is driving up consumption of flavored sugar water. Basically soft drink manufacturer advertising may be of benefit to those companies but from a societal standpoint it is a largely zero sum game merely driving the market share distribution between the competitors. So individual benefit but no real value to society at large.

          1. Instead of no-value-added, call it national overhead. What's the first thing that a bloated, floundering business should do? Cut overhead.

            But so much overhead is now dictated by our betters; EEOC compliance, IRS compliance, EPA compliance, OSHA compliance, Obamacare compliance, Governmental contract requirements....

            At the same time, non-productive activities have taken over the corporate world; most of HR, VPs of Happiness, etc...

          2. They advertise because they compete, and competition drives down costs and spurs innovation. I'm not really sure you define "real value to society at large", but lower costs and new products/services seem to fit the bill in the broadest possible sense.

            1. "competition drives down costs and spurs innovation"


              Coke has absolutely no reason to lower the price of it's soda and not much incentive to lower it's cost structure because it already has one of the highest profit margin products in the world (possibly the highest). Including overhead it costs Coke ~$0.30 to manufacture and distribute a 2 litre of coke, they wholesale it for ~$0.50 giving them a margin per bottle of ~66% and yet the price of that soda on the shelf is still low. Coke could actually increase the price of it's product and not see much if any decrease in sales.

              Coke does use some of it's profit margins from it's Cola product to fund research into other drink types (juices, teas, etc.) and they have driven the creation of new markets there but there really isn't a whole lot "innovate" on the production/delivery of soft drinks and the worst that would happen if Coke slashed it's marketing budget by 50% would be Pepsi taking 3 or 4% of market share away from them

              1. Coke thought that way back in the 50s (IIRC) and slashed their advertising budget. By the top they reversed course, Pepsi had become a huge player and Coke was behind in the grocery store segment.

              2. I disagree. Part of what holds Coke in its place as the dominant soft drink company is the branding that's achieved through advertising.

                If they were to slash adverts that drastically I think they would suffer a much larger decline in the long run (assuming that they kept the ad budget low). If Pepsi continued their marketing campaign, over time they would likely displace Coke in people's minds as THE soft drink of choice.

    2. Do economics theories of all swathes indicate that it would lead to negative real growth? Mine does, and that appears to be happening. Trading economic advantage for political power is not basic economics, but I think it has been analyzed.

      1. "Do economics theories of all swathes indicate that it would lead to negative real growth? "

        No, Keynesianism would say it was a net benefit (that whole paying 1 guy to dig a hole and another to fill it thing) but you are right.

        realistically it should result in negative real growth as resources are expended and rents extracted with nothing being produced as a result, albeit it may take a while to notice the effect and it could be small enough that productivity growth elsewhere in the economy could overwhelm it.

        That said I'm not certain that all of this is driven purely by the political sphere.

        For example, take the example of Coke/Pepsi I mentioned above.

        Here you have a product with astronomically high profit margins and ubiquitous market penetration. It is basically impossible for any amount of advertising to expand the market for cola consumption in the US and so all advertising in that market space is doing is allowing it's competitors to fight over shares of a pretty fixed market. Of course with the ridiculously high margins they make on the product they have to do something with the money and so they advertise more than almost every other class of product. All this advertising may indeed help Coke and Pepsi remain the dominant soft drink producers and maximize their individual profit margin they are fighting a zero sum game and the net benefit of that advertising to society comes in the forms of the entertainment it funds

        1. You are failing to recognize that new people become soda drinkers every day.

          Part of that advertising ensures that soda doesn't become an "old person's" drink.

          1. Yes, Part assures that Cola's place in peoples hearts remains where it is today.

            The other 90% of it is just a battle for Market Share with Pepsi.

            Also I should add, even if Cola did fall out of favor and "become an old persons drink" people will still drink something and I really don't see a mass movement to drinking pure water as a replacement. It would be a completely transparent change to the economy as a whole if the bulk of the populace switched from drinking Cola to drinking Root Beer or iced Tea or iced Coffee, or any other fungible substitute sugar sweetened beverage

  9. I drink Diet Obama because it's lower-cal, and I prefer the taste.


  10. What's the point of polling on Romney? I mean, that ship has sailed.

    1. I think you mean 'that ship sank'.

      1. Does it matter? He's done and more irrelevant than ever. What's relevant is the idiot holding office now, abusing our rights, further wrecking our economy.

        1. Well, it was nice to see him kick Obama in the balls on the Sunday MTP, but that doesn't mean I'd rather have him instead.

        2. Pro Libertate|11.19.13 @ 12:54PM|#
          "Does it matter?"
          Not at this point.

          1. She should be irrelevant, too. Sad how much we'll tolerate before we shun people. I think we should shun more.

      2. What difference, at this point, does it make?

    2. What's the point of polling on Romney?

      I am guessing ABC wants a GOP devil they know that Hilary can easily beat.

  11. I'm fairly new around here. Does Tulpa go away after elections and then re-surface? This post just made me realize I haven't seen him comment in a long time.

    1. No. He left academia and got a job in the private sector.... where they expect results.

      He only shows up on weekends to peevishly criticize people for not agreeing with him.

      1. No. He left academia and got a job in the private sector.... where they expect results.


    2. Someone ALWAYS decides to see if the old fable about facing the mirror and saying his name three times will summon him.

      And then they're shocked when HERE HE COMES AGAIN TO SHIT ALL OVER A THREAD!

      So - elections, the mirror thing, full moon, a chance for a new peak derp - pretty much anything will summon Tulip.

  12. ot:

    Funny video of Mayor Chris Farley: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB1dJeMtb08

    Or, this is why Canadians shouldn't own guns.

        1. What the hell were you even doing to produce a link like that...twice?

          1. She's the woman in the video and she was the head of the Manitoba Communist party? I screwed up the first link. Paul was just complaining about some socialist econ prof elected to Seattle city council?

  13. http://online.wsj.com/news/art.....3286552832

    Mr. O'Keefe says he received his subpoena in early October. He adds that at least three of the targets had their homes raided at dawn, with law-enforcement officers turning over belongings to seize computers and files.

    The subpoenas don't spell out a specific allegation, but the demands suggest the government may be pursuing a theory of illegal campaign coordination by independent groups during the recall elections. If prosecutors are pursuing a theory that independent conservative groups coordinated with candidate campaigns during the recall, their goal may be to transform the independent expenditures into candidate committees after the fact, requiring revision of campaign-finance disclosures and possible criminal charges.

    1A getting trampled in Wisconsin.

    1. The People's Republic

      Execution now, then the trial!

  14. I think this poll is part of a conspiracy to convince Republicans they can keep running the same cookie-cutter candidates, and NEXT TIME they will win.

    1. The sad thing is that if Obama's administration conitinues to circle the drain, by 2016 the election will be more of a referendum on Obama, just as 2008 was a referendum on Bush. So the Repub's will most likely nominate someone like Chris Christie, and he'll barely win, and they'll have learned nothing. The looting will continue, and the libertarian leaning R's such as Paul, Cruz, Amash et al will be effectively neutralized and contained and marginalized.

  15. It would be had been more interesting to do this poll with Ron Paul, Gary Johnson or Herman Cain.

  16. Who gives a fuck? OH! Apparently Politico. And Reason.


  17. Barack Obama is not scheduled to be present at Gettysburg on Tuesday to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the address. Maybe he figured that the world would little note, nor long remember, what he said there. Maybe he thought the comparisons with the original were bound to be invidious, and rightly so.


  18. We need polling data comparing Obama to Palin.

  19. Unfortunately, shifting one's preference from democrat to republican (or vice versa) is not a sign of improved political prowess. It's just a case of stupidity changing direction.

  20. "Let me be clear...you guys have already used up your votes."

  21. The scary thing is that 45% would *still* vote for Obama today.

    1. "B-b-but... WAR ON WYMENZ!!!! BINDERS FULL OF WYMEN!!!11!!! OBAMAPHONES!!!!!1!!!!!11!!!! DERP"

    2. I still suspect that 45% is low. People get circumspect between elections and they're living in the middle of [fill in President's name] administration.

      When the election actually rolls around, they get teary-eyed and emotional about personalities and legacies, plus partisan paranoia ramps up to factor 11, and everyone who voted Obama in round one and two would happily vote in round three, four, five etc.

      I agree with Welch and Gillespie about the republicans hurting themselves over trying to shut down Obamacare.

      John et. al are correct in that Obamacare will hurt Obama, but the only way Obamacare will hurt Obama and the Democrats is for people to find out what's in it.

      The Republicans need to continue to warn of its dangers, vote against provisions when they have the opportunity, but they need to shut up and let that runaway train go by and then have their I-told-you-so moment.

      1. Maybe we should have a quarterly vote confirmation. If the president gets voted down three quarters.in a row, the next presidential election is.advanced to the following quarter.

        1. I would love this.

    3. Dude, Romney put his dog on top of his car. A dog. On a car. Dog. Car.

      Obama is the clear choice when up against that psycho.

      1. I for one am sick of seeing those "My dog supports Obama" stickers. Your dog would support Hitler if Hitler were the last guy to give him a biscuit and a pat on the head. Nobody cares whom your dog would vote for.

        1. Yep. That's still better than the average voter.

  22. There's only one poll that matters, and it already happened this year.

    1. err...the 2012 election happened over a year ago.

      1. We had an election this year. Didn't ask this question, though.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.